THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT Joel Packer Principal

THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT Joel Packer, Principal The Raben Group Jpacker@rabengroup. com

■ Every Student Succeeds In December, Congress Actoverwhelmingly passed S. 1177, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This replaces the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Now Public Law 114 -95. ■ Passed the House by a vote of 359 -64 and the Senate by a vote of 85 -12. ■ Programs are authorized for FY 2017 through FY 2020. 2

Every Student Succeeds Act ■ The full text of ESSA is available at: https: //www. gpo. gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS 114 s 1177 enr/pdf/BILLS-114 s 1177 enr. pdf. ■ In addition, the full text of ESEA, as amended by ESSA, is available at: http: //legcounsel. house. gov/Comps/Elementary% 20 And%20 Secondary%20 Education%20 Act%20 Of%201965. pdf. 3

Implementation Timeline ■ ESEA waivers are null and void on August 1, 2016. ■ New State accountability systems take effect at the beginning of the 2017– 2018 school year. ■ In the 2016 -17 school year, States and LEAs must continue to implement any interventions required for schools/districts that have been identified as priority or focus schools under waivers until the State has a new Title I plan approved, or the accountability provisions of the new law go into effect. ■ Funding for programs in the new law starts with Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, which is school 4

Implementation Timeline ■ The U. S. Department of Education (ED) held two public hearings to solicit initial input. ■ University of California Los Angeles: (January 19, 2016) – – – Speaker List: http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essaspeakerinputmtglis t 1192016. pdf Transcript: http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essapublicinputmtg 119 2016. pdf Webcast: https: //1 sourceevents. adobeconnect. com/p 6 nbgk 9 zuxi/ ■ U. S. Department of Education: (January 11, 2016) – – – Speaker List: http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/speakerlistdcmtg 11120 16. pdf Transcript: http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essapublicinputmtg 111 2016. pdf Webcast: http: //edstream. ed. gov/webcast/Play/7592 f 68 fb 7404 eedb 2 b 89 ea 72032188 c 1 d 5

Implementation Timeline ■ ED also solicited written submissions of advice and recommendations. ■ 370 comments submitted can be found at http: //www. regulations. gov/#!document. Detail; D=ED-2015 -OESE-0130 -0001. ■ ED will use negotiated rulemaking for specific Title I issues: – Assessments ■ Locally selected nationally recognized high school assessments, inclusion of students with disabilities and English learners in academic assessments, computer-adaptive assessments – Supplement not supplant: related to the requirement that Title I funds be used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds ■ Schedule for negotiations (in Washington, DC) – March 21 -23, April 6 -8 , April 18 -19 (optional third session) 6

ED ESSA Materials ■ New ESSA Transition FAQs (February 26, 2016) http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/faq/essa-faqs. pdf ■ ESSA Dear Colleague Letter (January 28, 2016) http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/transitionsy 1617 dcl. pdf ■ ESSA Webinar Powerpoint (December 22, 2015) http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essastwebinar 122220 15. pdf ■ ESSA Webinar Audio Recording (December 22, 2016) http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essastwebinar 122220 15. wav ■ Dear Colleague Letter on the Transition to ESSA (December 18, 2015) http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/transition-dcl. pdf ■ Dear Colleague Letter on the New ESSA Law (December 10, 2015) http: //www 2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/151210. html 7

Standards ■ Each State must have “challenging” academic content standards and academic achievement standards for math, reading/English Language Arts (ELA) and science. ■ The standards must be aligned with entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in the system of public higher education in the state and relevant State career and technical education standards. ■ States not required to submit standards to the Education Department for review or approval. 8

Standards ■ Each State must also adopt English language proficiency (ELP) standards that align with the state's regular academic standards. ■ A State may adopt alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, as long as they are aligned with the state's regular standards, promote access to the general education curriculum and are consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 9

Testing ■ Maintains the current law annual math and reading tests in each of grades 3 -8 and once in high school. Also science test in each of grade spans 3 -5, 6 -9 and 10 -12. – Allows computer adaptive assessments. – Assessments may, at the state’s discretion, measure individual student growth. – Allows, but does not require, states to set a limit on the aggregate amount of time devoted to assessment administration for each grade. 10

Testing ■ Authorizes the Secretary of Education to grant up to 7 States the ability to use an “innovative assessment system” such as competency-based, cumulative year-end assessments. ■ Does not generally allow for the use of local assessments, except states may allow an LEA to use a nationally-recognized high school academic assessment (such as the SAT or ACT) in lieu of a state assessment as long as such assessment is aligned to the State's standards and meet other requirements. ■ Requires LEAs to provide parents, on request and in a timely manner, with information regarding state or local policy, procedures and parental rights regarding student participation in mandated 11

Subgroups ■ Maintains required disaggregation of data by current law subgroups (race, economically disadvantaged students, children with disabilities, English proficiency status). ■ Maintains migrant status and gender as subgroups for reporting, not accountability. ■ Add new subgroups for reporting purposes only: homeless children, foster youth, and students with a parent who is an active duty member of the Armed Forces. 12

Accountability ■ Eliminates most current law federal accountability requirements, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and consequences. ■ Requires each State to create an accountability index system with certain federally-required components. ■ States have to submit their accountability plans to ED for approval, although the law explicitly prohibits the department from adding or deleting requirements or specific elements to state plans. 13

Accountability ■ Each state must establish “ambitious” longterm goals that include interim measurements of progress toward those goals for all students, as well as separately for the disaggregated subgroups of students. ■ The state's long-term goals must include improved academic achievement, improved high school graduation rates and increases in the percentage of students making progress in English language proficiency. 14

Accountability ■ The State-defined index must include the following indicators (measured for all students and subgroups, except for the ELL proficiency indicator): – Academic Indicators: ■ Academic achievement based on the annual assessments and on the State’s goals. ■ A measure of student growth or other statewide academic indicator for elementary and middle schools. ■ Graduation rates for high schools based on the State’s goals. ■ Progress in achieving English proficiency for ELLs in each of grades 3 through 8 and the same high school grade in which the State assesses for Math/Reading. 15

Accountability – Measure of School Quality and Student Success At least one measure of school quality or student success (examples listed include student and educator engagement, access and completion of advanced coursework, postsecondary readiness, school climate and safety, and/or another State selected indicator). ■ Based on the performance of schools and subgroups on these indicators, States are required to “meaningfully differentiate” public schools in the State on an annual basis. ■ “Substantial weight” is required to be given to the Academic Indicators and these 4 indicators must, in the aggregate be given “much greater weight” in the differentiation process than any Measures of School Quality or Student Success. 16

Accountability ■ States are required to annually measure the achievement of not less than 95% of all students and subgroups of students in public schools using Title I State assessments. States must provide a clear and understandable explanation of how the 95% assessment requirement will factor into the accountability system. – Under current law, if any subgroups fails to meet 95% test participation rate, the school fails to make AYP. 17

School Improvement ■ Eliminates required 20% LEA set-aside for Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and public school choice transportation. – Eliminates School Improvement Grants (SIG) as a separate program. – Increases State set-aside of Title I funds for school improvement from 4% to 7%. In Fiscal Year 2017, since ESSA eliminates LEA hold harmless, this will likely result in reductions to LEA Title I allocations, though additional funds will be allocated under school improvement. – States would be allowed to reserve 3% of their Title I funds to make competitive grants to LEAs to provide advanced courses, CTE courses, AP/IB tests, public school choice or high-quality academic tutoring. 18

School Improvement ■ Based on State accountability index, beginning with school year 2017 -2018 and at least once every 3 years, States must identify schools for “comprehensive support and improvement. ” ■ States must also set exit criteria for schools that are identified to exit such status. 19

School Improvement ■ Schools that are required to be identified: – The lowest performing 5% in the State; – High schools that graduate less than twothirds of their students; and – Schools for which any subgroup performs in the same manner as a school under lowest 5% category for a State-determined number of years. 20

School Improvement ■ LEAs must develop comprehensive support and improvement plans for schools identified. ■ Plans are required to include evidence-based interventions, be based on a school-level needs assessment, identify resource inequities, be approved by the school, LEA and State Educational Agency (SEA), and be periodically monitored and reviewed by the SEA. ■ LEAs may provide students with the option to transfer to another public school, including paying for transportation costs (up to 5% of their Title I allocation). ■ After a state-determined period of years (not to exceed 4 years) States must take more rigorous state determined action if a school identified for comprehensive support and intervention has not met 21 the exit criteria.

School Improvement ■ In addition to identification for comprehensive support and improvement, the State must annually notify LEAs with schools which have “consistently underperforming” subgroups. ■ Schools which are notified must develop and implement a “targeted support and improvement plan” to improve outcomes for subgroups which generated the notification. ■ As with schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement, notification for target support and improvement will begin with the 2017 -2018 academic year. 22

School Improvement ■ These plans must include evidence-based interventions and be approved and monitored by the LEA. ■ If the plan is not successfully implemented after a LEA determined number of years, additional action must take place. ■ Schools for which plans are developed where subgroup performance, on its own, would lead to identification for comprehensive support and improvement as in the lowest 5%, must also identify resource inequities to be addressed through plan implementation. 23

Report Cards ■ Retains the requirement in current law for State and LEA report cards but expands required elements. ■ Elements required on the state report card include: – A description of the accountability system, goals, indicators and weights of indicators used in such system; – For all students and subgroups (racial and ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged status, English proficiency status, gender, migrant status, homeless and foster youth, and students with a parent in the military), information on student achievement on the State tests; – For all students and the accountability subgroups, percentage of students assessed and not assessed; 24

Report Cards – The number and names of all public schools in the State identified for comprehensive support and improvement or implementing targeted support and improvement. – Data regarding measures of school quality, and the numbers and percentage of students enrolled in preschool programs and accelerated coursework for postsecondary credit while still in high school. – The number and percentage of inexperienced teachers and principals, teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and teachers who are not teaching in the field for which they are certified. 25

Report Cards – This data must be presented in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared with low-poverty schools. – The per-pupil expenditures of federal, state and local funds, including personnel expenditures and non-personnel expenditures, disaggregated by source of funds, for each local school district and each school for the preceding fiscal year. – The number and percentage of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternative assessment, by grade and subject. – Information on acquisition of English proficiency by English learners. 26

Report Cards – Measures of school quality, climate, and safety, including rates of in-school suspensions, out-ofschool suspensions, expulsions, school-related arrests, referrals to law enforcement, chronic absenteeism (including both excused and unexcused absences), incidences of violence, including bullying and harassment; – Results on state academic assessments in reading and math in grades four and eight of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, compared with the national average. – For each high school in the state, beginning for 2017, the cohort graduation rate. – LEA report cards require all of the information reported on the state report cards with the exception of NAEP results as applied to the LEA and school and how the performance of each school’s students compare to performance of the LEA and State as a whole. 27

Additional State Plan Elements ■ Help local school districts and elementary schools support early childhood education; ■ Ensure that low-income and minority children are not disproportionately taught by ineffectual, out-of-field or inexperienced teachers, and publish any criteria used to measure teacher or principal effectiveness; ■ Support local school district efforts to reduce bullying; 28

Additional State Plan Elements ■ Help local school districts provide for student transitions between levels of school to reduce the risk of students dropping out; ■ Ensure the educational stability of children in foster care by allowing them to stay in their original school; ■ Support the educational stability of homeless children and youths; and ■ Eliminate state fiscal and accounting barriers so schools can easily consolidate and use funds from federal, state and local sources. 29

Consolidations ■ Creates new Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants authorized at $1. 65 billion (Title IV, Part A). ■ Consolidates several programs (AP, physical education, education technology, school counseling. ) ■ Provides formula grants to LEAs based on their share of Title I funds. ■ Requires LEAs to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment every three years for the activities it will support. ■ At least 20% of the funds must be used for providing a well-rounded education, with at least another 20% used to foster safe and supportive learning environments. Some funding must be used to increase access to learning experiences supported by 30 technology.

■ Student Support and Academic Enrichment Authorized activities to support safe and healthy students include: – evidence-based. Grants drug and violence prevention programs; – school-based mental health services, including through partnerships with mental health or health care entities; – activities to support a healthy, active lifestyle, including physical education; – activities to help prevent bullying and harassment; – mentoring and school counseling; – school dropout and reentry programs; – high-quality training for school personnel in such areas as suicide prevention, crisis management, and conflict resolution; – child sexual abuse awareness and prevention programs; – designing and implementing plans to reduce exclusionary discipline practices; – and implementing schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports. 31

Programs Retained ■ Maintains as separate programs or programs guaranteed a certain level of funding: – Literacy (now called Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation - LEARN) – 21 st Century Community Learning Centers (after school) – Charter Schools – Magnet Schools – Promise Neighborhoods – Gifted and Talented 32

FY 2017 BUDGET

President’s FY 2017 ■ Adheres to spending caps set in Bipartisan Budget Act – aggregate freeze. ■ Increases the Department of Education (ED) by $1. 3 billion (+1. 96%) ■ Many current programs frozen including literacy, Impact Aid, rural education, IDEA Grants to States. ■ Proposed new K 12 programs: – Stronger Together ($120 million) – Next Generation High Schools ($80 million) – Computer Science for All Development Grants ($100 million) 34

President’s FY 2017 Budget: Program Increases ■ Title I = +$450 million (+3%). However, proposed funding level is equal to the combined FY 2016 appropriations for Title I and School Improvement Grants, which was eliminated by ESSA. ■ Promise Neighborhoods = +$54. 7 million (+74. 7 percent). ■ Charter Schools Grants = +$16. 83 million (+5. 0 percent). ■ Magnet schools assistance = +$18. 35 million (+19 percent). ■ Education Innovation And Research = +$80 million (+50 percent) 35

President’s FY 2017 Budget: Title IV, Part A ■ Proposed funding is $500 million. ■ An increase over combined FY 2016 funding of $275 million for consolidated programs but less than 1/3 rd of $1. 65 billion authorization. ■ Proposes to allow States to award funds to LEAs by either formula or competitive basis. ■ Allows States to target funds to one of the three required categories of activities or one or more of the specific activities. ■ Sets minimum grant at $50, 000. 36

37